NAUJILJ Vol 11 (2) 2020 THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE FACE OF THE GLOBAL COVID-19 PANDEMIC* Abstract In addressing global issues, international relations and international law have always worked together since time immemorial. The nexus between both fields has however not flowed seamlessly or naturally. The nexus seems to be changing and needs a re-conceptualization within the global system especially with the nature of the threat posed by new pandemics such as the Corona Virus otherwise called the COVID - 19. With the emergence of COVID - 19 pandemic, strains are gradually increasing between international relations and international law such that despite consistent scholarly attention on the fields, their points of connection, both seems not to have engaged in a coherent international intercourse and coordination especially as regards to the efforts aimed at effective identification, control and prevention of the disease. This is surprising, given the marginal place of international relations and international law in global epidemiology. This paper is based on qualitative research. The theory adopted was collective security theory in international relations (liberalism). Collective security is a system by which states have attempted to prevent or stop wars through international treaties and conventions. International relations, international law and COVID - 19 were discussed on separate headings given details to each. It provides an outline of the convergence and dichotomy between both fields in the control of the COVID - 19 pandemic and explicated the ways we can build on the strengths of both fields and overcome inherent contextual dissimilarities with a view to having a global peaceful medical environment. The concluding part of the paper dealt with how to jointly curtail the pandemic globally. Keywords: “International Relations”, “International Law”, “Pandemics”, “COVID-19”, “Death”, “World War”. 1 Introduction * Omodele, Adeyemi O. LLB (Hons Ado-Ekiti), BL, LLM (Ife), PhD Student (Law & Diplomacy), Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Babcock University, Nigeria., E-mail: [email protected] Page | 61 OMODELE ADEYEMI The dialogue between international relations and international law has always been a basis of scholarly discourse. While both concepts are naturally related, with international law often treated as a subset of international relations, they at most times do not flow seamlessly or naturally. In practical terms, their trajectories have sometimes been convergent and sometimes parallel especially as it relates to global issues, such as pandemics. Epidemiological concerns following the emergence and reemergence of contagious diseases i.e. the Spanish flu, SARS flu, and the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in recent times for instance, has placed the global health architecture under immense strain. It has demoralized political and economic systems across the globe and is threatening the very essence of international relations and international law. The COVID-19 pandemic in particular poses serious problems of enormous scale and complexities for the global health system and has revealed serious flaws in the capability of international relations and international law to fully respond to the crisis.1 The global component of the strategy for controlling the pandemic continues to face some basic problems in its application to facilitate international relations in controlling the pandemic. In addition, as the pandemic continues to spread, with regimes failing to effectively cooperate and coordinate efforts to contain the outbreak of the pandemic, the links between international relations and international law has become even clearer; however, the multilateral system of international relations, which is hinged on the United Nations, has remained weak. The weakness of the international multilateral relations structure may be due to structuring the world into separate sovereign countries who do not accept a higher collective authority. Only States can control their actions under such a structure, and international law is the historical result of international relations in a devolved setting.2 Hence, both fields seem not to have engaged in a coherent intercourse in identifying, controlling and preventing the pandemic. Actions towards the pandemic are mostly taken on a unilateral basis and are gradually exacerbating tensions among states of the world. With the marginal interactivity between international relations and international law, the best way for addressing the pandemic is still a working intercourse between both fields. Hence addressing the pandemic might need a re-conceptualization of the intercourse between both fields within the global system especially as it relates to the nature of the threat posed by the pandemic. Consequently, in understanding the relationship between international relations and international law especially as it relates to quelling the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper explicates the areas of convergence and dichotomy between both fields. Specific emphasis is given to present and future directions. 1.1 Methodology of the Paper The paper is based on qualitative research. It employs a systematic review of extant literature on international relations, international law and the COVID-19 pandemic. Information was sourced 1 Z. He, L, Sun. ‗A Chinese Theory of International Law‘, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, (2020), pp. 3- 4. 2 Ibid Page | 62 NAUJILJ Vol 11 (2) 2020 from relevant literature, reports, journals, newspaper, textbooks, unpublished works and monographs. Other related sources on the internet in various contexts were also used to review existing connections and areas of divergence between international relations and international law as it relates to the COVID-19 pandemic. 1.2 Collective Security Theory Collective security is a system by which states have attempted to prevent or stop wars. Under a collective security arrangement, an aggressor against any one state is considered an aggressor against all other states, which act together to repel the aggressor.3 Collective security arrangements have always been conceived as being global in scope; this is in fact a defining characteristic, distinguishing them from regional alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Both the League of Nations and the United Nations were founded on the principle of collective security. The principle of collective security provides rationality for a range of international organizations - such as the UN, NATO, EU, and OSCE - which all attempt to uphold international peace and stability through treaties and conventions.4 Neither the League nor the United Nations were able to operate the principle successfully to prevent aggression because of the conflicts of interest among states, especially among the major powers.5In a system of collective security, the enemy is a threat to regional or international peace and security. It was stated further that the system of collective security is international in its reach, a threat can originate in any region, anywhere on the globe. Any nation within the regional or international system that commits aggression, imperils the peace, or grossly exceeds the bounds of civilized behaviour violates the norms of that collective security system and is subject to enforcement action. It has been argued that no nation is excluded from the responsibility of maintaining peace and security regardless of where, within its collective security system, the threat originates. Collective security can be triggered in another way. A threatened nation, exercising its inherent right of collective self-defense, can call on others to help.6 1.3 International Relations International relations refer to a vague term widely used to denote interactions among states, between states, state-based actors and across state boundaries. It has a defined membership (e.g., states), law norms delimiting rights (e.g., sovereignty) and obligations (as defined in system wide multilateral treaties, like the UN Charter), and authoritative roles (the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Although international relations have taken on a new connotation in the contemporary era because of our ever more interconnected world, it is certainly not a new concept. This is because since time immemorial, states have often cooperated with one another to address a broad range of issues and to build sustainable relationships on various areas of interest, 3 Yale Law School; ‗The Avalon project, Documents, History and Diplomacy‘, in The Covenant of the League of Nations, (1919). http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/parti.asp.accessed on 16/04//2020. 4 K Immanuel; Perpetual Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 93 - 130. 5 Ibid 6 D S Yost; NATO Transformed: The Alliance’s New Roles in International Security, (London: Leicester University Press, 1977), p.149. Page | 63 OMODELE ADEYEMI and the basis of cooperation was mostly the instituting of treaties among nations. International relations allow nations to cooperate with one another, pool resources and share information as a way to face global issues that go beyond any particular country or region.7 In the present era, the understanding of international relations is becoming increasingly complex and is now seen as a means through which nations can interact and collaborate in matters such as military intervention, commerce and trade, cultural exchanges,